|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
United States42839 Posts
On June 20 2017 23:08 farvacola wrote:
One could also argue that "we find this inconvenient, we're just gonna leave the EU" ought engender a similar response.
And if we presented the EU with a €100 billion invoice for the inconvenience the EU has caused us then I suspect they would be equally unimpressed by it.
Political risk is an ongoing and accepted possibility for operations. Invoices need to be connected to actual obligations. Where such obligations exist, such as the UK government agreeing to fund a certain project, a settlement will need to be negotiated. But the rest of it is just Trumpian "and Mexico will pay for it". Popular with his supporters but Mexico isn't about to write a check.
|
On June 20 2017 23:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 22:39 Laurens wrote:But the idea that the EU as a whole can come up with a broad invoice for the inconvenience that the loss of the UK will cause them and demand payment is absurd. It just doesn't work like that. At all. It does, and it's also exactly what's happening in the negotiations atm. Well I guess we'll wait and see. You guys can have fun trying to squeeze money out of a bankrupt and unpopular Tory government whose only remaining block of supporters would be outraged if you got a penny.
I think you're overestimating the UK's bargaining position. The UK's government internal fuckups are entirely irrelevant to the entire matter. You want to leave the EU? Fine, but I hope you realize that that costs money. There's hundreds of entanglements that need to be solved and solving every single one of them costs money.
If the UK doesn't pay, then other European countries will have to. And understandably, other European countries are uninterested in paying a single cent of their own taxpayers' money towards Brexit. So if the negotiations end in a "haha, we're leaving and it'll cost you a ton of money and there's fuck all you can do about it" (aka "no deal"), expect pissed off EU nations to retaliate with sky-high trade tariffs. That will be bad for absolutely everybody involved, so it is in the best interest of absolutely everybody to find a way of conducting Brexit in a way that works for everybody. And that is a complex process of negotiation that will undoubtedly end in the UK paying a bill that covers outstanding dues, ongoing participation in some projects and others. If the UK can't sell that internally, because "no deal is better than a bad deal", and apparently all deals are bad deals, and decides to default to the aforementioned position, it's going to cost everybody involved a LOT more money in lost trade. That is undesirable for absolutely everybody, but I can see how a shitty Nash equilibrium will be reached because the UKIP no deal derps would rather have everybody pay a lot MORE money just to be able to say they "stuck" it to the EU (even if it'll still end up hurting the UK a lot more than the EU).
|
United States42839 Posts
On June 20 2017 23:23 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 23:00 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2017 22:39 Laurens wrote:But the idea that the EU as a whole can come up with a broad invoice for the inconvenience that the loss of the UK will cause them and demand payment is absurd. It just doesn't work like that. At all. It does, and it's also exactly what's happening in the negotiations atm. Well I guess we'll wait and see. You guys can have fun trying to squeeze money out of a bankrupt and unpopular Tory government whose only remaining block of supporters would be outraged if you got a penny. I think you're overestimating the UK's bargaining position. The UK's government internal fuckups are entirely irrelevant to the entire matter. You want to leave the EU? Fine, but I hope you realize that that costs money. There's hundreds of entanglements that need to be solved and solving every single one of them costs money. If the UK doesn't pay, then other European countries will have to. And understandably, other European countries are uninterested in paying a single cent of their own taxpayers' money towards Brexit. So if the negotiations end in a "haha, we're leaving and it'll cost you a ton of money and there's fuck all you can do about it" (aka "no deal"), expect pissed off EU nations to retaliate with sky-high trade tariffs. That will be bad for absolutely everybody involved, so it is in the best interest of absolutely everybody to find a way of conducting Brexit in a way that works for everybody. And that is a complex process of negotiation that will undoubtedly end in the UK paying a bill that covers outstanding dues, ongoing participation in some projects and others. If the UK can't sell that internally, because "no deal is better than a bad deal", and apparently all deals are bad deals, and decides to default to the aforementioned position, it's going to cost everybody involved a LOT more money in lost trade. That is undesirable for absolutely everybody, but I can see how a shitty Nash equilibrium will be reached because the UKIP no deal derps would rather have everybody pay a lot MORE money just to be able to say they "stuck" it to the EU (even if it'll still end up hurting the UK a lot more than the EU).
I think the idea of punitive tariffs being levied against the UK is pretty laughable. At this point you're sounding a lot like the "Mexico will pay for the wall" folks. The EU Common External Tariff may apply, but special tariffs just for the UK? No chance!
Either way I am glad that you have at least acknowledged that there is no political will within the UK to push through the kind of deal you think the EU will demand. The UK governments internal weakness is absolutely relevant. As I have already explained, these £40b £60b figures being thrown around have no basis in obligation, this is a fishing expedition. The UK doesn't owe the EU that money, the EU would just like to have the money, no different to Trump and his claim that Germany owes him money for NATO. In both cases there is no contractual or legal basis to the claim. If you can understand that there is no basis for the claim then the ability of the UK government to actually follow through on the agreement, were it reached, is extremely relevant.
As it stands David Davis could cave on all issues and sign whatever the EU put in front of him but you still wouldn't get a penny because it wouldn't make it through Parliament. Theresa May's government just doesn't have the kind of majority to push through an unpopular deal, nor the political will to suffer the costs associated with it.
The British negotiating position has very little room for movement because the British government has very few options available to them. The EU can have the upper hand in negotiations all they like but the most they can ever get is the most the British can give them, and that's just not very much right now. The best possible deal for the EU just isn't a very good deal.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I have to agree with Kwark - the EU is doing little more than legitimizing Trump's "you all owe us money" crusade by waging one of their own. But I also don't think the EU is capable of stopping - while I thought that pragmatism would beat out the desire to stick it to the UK for voting to leave, it seems that the EU is paralyzed by radicals who will have none of it.
|
The European Commission wrote on May 3rd 2017Recommendation for a
COUNCIL DECISION
authorising the opening of the negotiations for an agreement with the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal
from the European Union III.2. Financial settlement 23. A single financial settlement should ensure that both the Union and the United Kingdom respect the obligations resulting from the whole period of the United Kingdom membership in the Union. The negotiations relating to the methodology for the financial settlement should be based on the following principles. 24. There should be a single financial settlement related to : - the Union budget - the termination of the membership of the United Kingdom of all bodies or institutions established by the Treaties (e.g. the European Investment Bank, the European Central Bank); - the participation of the United Kingdom in specific funds and facilities related to Union policies (e.g. the European Development Fund and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey). 25. This single financial settlement should be based on the principle that the United Kingdom must honour its share of the financing of all the obligations undertaken while it was a member of the Union. 26. In accordance with paragraph 10 of the European Council guidelines, these obligations cover liabilities, including contingent liabilities and any other obligations deriving from a basic act within the meaning of Article 54 of the Financial Regulation. In addition, the United Kingdom should fully cover the specific costs related to the withdrawal process such as the relocation of the agencies or other Union bodies. 27. The calculation method should be based on official consolidated annual accounts to be supplemented, as necessary, by making use of interim accounts. It will also use amounts from the relevant basic acts (including reference amounts and their followup through the financial programming). The obligations should be defined in euro. 28. The calculation method of the United Kingdom's obligations towards the Union budget should be based on the own resources decision and take into account the historical evidence of its share of the financing before the withdrawal date. 29. Modalities of payments should be agreed in order to mitigate the impact of the withdrawal on the budget for the Union. 30. The Agreement should therefore contain: (a) A calculation of the global amount that the United Kingdom has to honour in order to settle its financial obligations toward the Union budget, all institutions or bodies established by the Treaties, and other issues with a financial impact. The global amount may be subject to future annual technical adjustments. (b) A schedule of the annual payments to be made by the United Kingdom and the practical modalities for making these payments. (c) Transitional rules to ensure control by the Commission (or, where applicable, another body responsible under Union law before the withdrawal date), the Court of Auditors, OLAF and the power to adjudicate of the Court of Justice of the European Union for past payments/recovery orders to United Kingdom beneficiaries and any payments made to United Kingdom beneficiaries after the withdrawal date to honour all legal commitments (including possible loans) authorised by the responsible entity before the withdrawal date. (d) Possible arrangements in relation with legal commitments or future legal commitments made towards United Kingdom beneficiaries after the withdrawal date (e.g. concerning the managing authorities for the payment of United Kingdom beneficiaries). (e) Specific rules to address the issue of contingent liabilities assumed by the Union budget or specific institutions or bodies or funds (such as loans made by the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund).
Source
|
From my view across the ocean, it appears that the EU is trying to get the UK to calculate their outstanding debt obligation to the EU. How much of that amount gets paid is another topic, but it is good to have a starting number. Am I totally off base?
|
United States42839 Posts
On June 21 2017 00:10 Plansix wrote:
From my view across the ocean, it appears that the EU is trying to get the UK to calculate their outstanding debt obligation to the EU. How much of that amount gets paid is another topic, but it is good to have a starting number. Am I totally off base?
It's a Trumpian NATO debt, not an actual debt relating to any actual agreed upon obligation.
|
On June 21 2017 00:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 00:10 Plansix wrote:
From my view across the ocean, it appears that the EU is trying to get the UK to calculate their outstanding debt obligation to the EU. How much of that amount gets paid is another topic, but it is good to have a starting number. Am I totally off base? It's a Trumpian NATO debt, not an actual debt relating to any actual agreed upon obligation.
I mean, I would assume there would be some outstanding state debts based on agreements with the EU that would need to be reworked during Brexit. And those debts would go both ways. But politicians attempting to play nationalistic hardball seems to be the flavor of politics right now. And politicians promising to give their citizens what they want with zero cost or consequences.
|
United States42839 Posts
On June 21 2017 00:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 00:20 KwarK wrote:On June 21 2017 00:10 Plansix wrote:
From my view across the ocean, it appears that the EU is trying to get the UK to calculate their outstanding debt obligation to the EU. How much of that amount gets paid is another topic, but it is good to have a starting number. Am I totally off base? It's a Trumpian NATO debt, not an actual debt relating to any actual agreed upon obligation. I mean, I would assume there would be some outstanding state debts based on agreements with the EU that would need to be reworked during Brexit. And those debts would go both ways. But politicians attempting to play nationalistic hardball seems to be the flavor of politics right now. And politicians promising to give their citizens what they want with zero cost or consequences.
In terms of the ongoing costs of the EU until the UK leaves, Britain already pays more than it gets, I don't believe there has been any talk of Britain withholding EU payments while in the EU. Anything funded by the EU, rather than the UK, wouldn't be a British concern once Britain leaves. Britain paid her share (and then some) while a member and cannot reasonably be expected to continue paying a share of EU operating expenses while not in the EU. There will be some cases in which the UK made a specific agreement to fund things directly and those will need to be settled but anything the EU funds is an EU problem, not a British obligation.
It's also important to remember that Britain isn't abandoning the EU, there are fundamental divisions within the EU between the federalists and those in favour of a multi speed Europe. The European Community that Britain joined is a very different beast to the EU that Britain is leaving. If the ideals of the EC had remained unchanged I would be very surprised if Brexit had happened, sovereignty is the central issue under dispute. It could easily be argued that Britain has remained static while other nations have left to form a closer union. Either way, it wasn't just that half of Britain wanted to leave, a considerable contingent of the EU correctly view British membership as a barrier to their federalist project and wanted Britain to either follow or leave. The European project has become something the British people aren't comfortable pursuing and those who do want to pursue it are unwilling to be frustrated by British skepticism.
|
On June 21 2017 00:01 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +The European Commission wrote on May 3rd 2017Recommendation for a
COUNCIL DECISION
authorising the opening of the negotiations for an agreement with the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal
from the European Union III.2. Financial settlement 23. A single financial settlement should ensure that both the Union and the United Kingdom respect the obligations resulting from the whole period of the United Kingdom membership in the Union. The negotiations relating to the methodology for the financial settlement should be based on the following principles. 24. There should be a single financial settlement related to : - the Union budget - the termination of the membership of the United Kingdom of all bodies or institutions established by the Treaties (e.g. the European Investment Bank, the European Central Bank); - the participation of the United Kingdom in specific funds and facilities related to Union policies (e.g. the European Development Fund and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey). 25. This single financial settlement should be based on the principle that the United Kingdom must honour its share of the financing of all the obligations undertaken while it was a member of the Union. 26. In accordance with paragraph 10 of the European Council guidelines, these obligations cover liabilities, including contingent liabilities and any other obligations deriving from a basic act within the meaning of Article 54 of the Financial Regulation. In addition, the United Kingdom should fully cover the specific costs related to the withdrawal process such as the relocation of the agencies or other Union bodies. 27. The calculation method should be based on official consolidated annual accounts to be supplemented, as necessary, by making use of interim accounts. It will also use amounts from the relevant basic acts (including reference amounts and their followup through the financial programming). The obligations should be defined in euro. 28. The calculation method of the United Kingdom's obligations towards the Union budget should be based on the own resources decision and take into account the historical evidence of its share of the financing before the withdrawal date. 29. Modalities of payments should be agreed in order to mitigate the impact of the withdrawal on the budget for the Union. 30. The Agreement should therefore contain: (a) A calculation of the global amount that the United Kingdom has to honour in order to settle its financial obligations toward the Union budget, all institutions or bodies established by the Treaties, and other issues with a financial impact. The global amount may be subject to future annual technical adjustments. (b) A schedule of the annual payments to be made by the United Kingdom and the practical modalities for making these payments. (c) Transitional rules to ensure control by the Commission (or, where applicable, another body responsible under Union law before the withdrawal date), the Court of Auditors, OLAF and the power to adjudicate of the Court of Justice of the European Union for past payments/recovery orders to United Kingdom beneficiaries and any payments made to United Kingdom beneficiaries after the withdrawal date to honour all legal commitments (including possible loans) authorised by the responsible entity before the withdrawal date. (d) Possible arrangements in relation with legal commitments or future legal commitments made towards United Kingdom beneficiaries after the withdrawal date (e.g. concerning the managing authorities for the payment of United Kingdom beneficiaries). (e) Specific rules to address the issue of contingent liabilities assumed by the Union budget or specific institutions or bodies or funds (such as loans made by the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund). Source
They can give tons of rationales for the final number or say pink unicorns wrote it down for them in glitter, they aren't going to get it. It was all implicitly contingent on the UK's continued membership in the EU. If the EU finds ongoing research or offices beneficial to itself, they may negotiate on costs of the program. Bill the UK and mic-drop is folly.
Doubly ridiculous is your prior post that the EU is obligated to hurt its own citizens to make sure the UK doesnt get away with it. "You lose or everybody loses as punishment" is a very weak argument for picking the "You lose" option.
+ Show Spoiler +So if the negotiations end in a "haha, we're leaving and it'll cost you a ton of money and there's fuck all you can do about it" (aka "no deal"), expect pissed off EU nations to retaliate with sky-high trade tariffs. That will be bad for absolutely everybody involved, so it is in the best interest of absolutely everybody to find a way of conducting Brexit in a way that works for everybody. You make an excellent argument for it being in everybody's interest for a deal without a pathetic leave-EU bill, since that option involves less suffering for the EU than retaliatory stupidity.
|
Kwark I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the negotiations. If David Davis and his EU counterparts manages to agree on all of the several possible deals with the EU, then there is a good chance that the deals put in place would be favourable to passing in parliament as it is negotiated by the current ruling government. You also appear to be under the assumption that the British people are in favour of leaving the EU. You have got to remember, the results of the election in a purely proportional basis was that 42% voted for the Conservatives, and 40% voted for Labour and 7% for Lib Dems. there is no broad support for having no deal at all and reverting to WTO rules. The only real counter argument is that no possible realistic deal would be acceptable, no matter what the deal would be, due to the fragmented nature of opinion of the British public. Lastly, there maybe be no legal or enforcable obligations to pay an exit bill, but I don't see why it would be a problem to pay the obligations the UK is under for projects and pensions and the like. It is not a punishment, and I don't know why people beleive it is such.
|
On June 21 2017 00:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Kwark I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the negotiations. If David Davis and his EU counterparts manages to agree on all of the several possible deals with the EU, then there is a good chance that the deals put in place would be favourable to passing in parliament as it is negotiated by the current ruling government. You also appear to be under the assumption that the British people are in favour of leaving the EU. You have got to remember, the results of the election in a purely proportional basis was that 42% voted for the Conservatives, and 40% voted for Labour and 7% for Lib Dems. there is no broad support for having no deal at all and reverting to WTO rules. The only real counter argument is that no possible realistic deal would be acceptable, no matter what the deal would be, due to the fragmented nature of opinion of the British public. Lastly, there maybe be no legal or enforcable obligations to pay an exit bill, but I don't see why it would be a problem to pay the obligations the UK is under for projects and pensions and the like. It is not a punishment, and I don't know why people beleive it is such.
Labour ran a manifesto commited to leaving the EU and the single market (although some politicians would make u think otherwise) so 80% of people voted for parties wanting to leave the EU and the single market. Don't listen to rogue MPs or media outlets trying to turn it into something else, the previous election wasn't really about Brexit, Cobyn accepted Brexit and moved on to austerity and social care and thats why the conservatives didn't win not because of a brexit backlash.
|
United States42839 Posts
If the EU offered a softish Brexit without terms that would devastate the Conservative/UKIP backbone then yeah, it'd pass. Labour wouldn't vote against it because Labour wouldn't want to take a stance and they'd know they wouldn't have the votes either way. It'd not be a fight they can win, they wouldn't be able to defeat the bill if it was a generous offer and by attempting to they would be committing to the Remainer side which I think they have no inclination to do. I think Labour greatly enjoy being the party of "the Tories suck" without having to pick a definite spot of ground for themselves, they thrive in that role.
So yeah, if the Conservatives get offered a great deal then they'll take it, and pass it, SNP/Lib Dems will vote against (Remain) and Labour will vote on conscience. Conservatives will declare victory. I'm not especially bothered by that hypothetical.
However if the Conservatives get offered an extremely unfavourable Brexit on a take it or leave it basis then we're in trouble. While the hard Brexiteers make up a minority of the country the Conservative party is the party of Brexit, they can't ignore those people. They will not win a vote on a bill promising to send £10b to the EU while leaving and even if they did they would get massacred at the polls. The people who would forgive them for it aren't Conservative voters. Broad support for a WTO reversion isn't as important as the support within their own base and their base. I don't think they ever hold that vote, the political cost is too high. Also even if they do there's a good chance they lose it as MPs break the whip. Meanwhile Labour gets to say "we're not saying we're against Brexit but this isn't the right Brexit, we're voting it down as a vote of no confidence". In that scenario Labour can be theoretically committed to honouring the outcome of the referendum while voting against Brexit purely to defeat the government and trigger a general election.
The Conservatives will not take a deal to Parliament that they don't think they can win, nor one that they can't defend to their base. Their lack of a majority and their dependence upon the UKIP wing puts them in a very tight spot on both counts. Sure, refusal to make a deal will piss off a bunch of Lib Dem and SNP voters who don't want a reversion to WTO rules. But refusal to accept a deal that is unpalatable will save them the support of a bunch of Tory voters. This is politics.
As for pensions and so forth, aren't they normally funded over time as the liabilities are incurred? You pay into the pension fund as long as you're employing the person. If they stop working for you (as they would if they were EU employees and the UK left) then you stop paying into the pension fund. Either way though, the kind of numbers being thrown around by EU politicians are astronomical. We're not talking about settling unfinished business and settling contracts, we're talking about the entire annual budget of the NHS. If they wanted a few hundred million (on top of what they're already getting while we stay) that'd be one thing. £70b though is a joke. Even if the government had that kind of money, and it doesn't, it would be political suicide to send it abroad.
|
On June 21 2017 00:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 00:01 Artisreal wrote:The European Commission wrote on May 3rd 2017Recommendation for a
COUNCIL DECISION
authorising the opening of the negotiations for an agreement with the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal
from the European Union III.2. Financial settlement 23. A single financial settlement should ensure that both the Union and the United Kingdom respect the obligations resulting from the whole period of the United Kingdom membership in the Union. The negotiations relating to the methodology for the financial settlement should be based on the following principles. 24. There should be a single financial settlement related to : - the Union budget - the termination of the membership of the United Kingdom of all bodies or institutions established by the Treaties (e.g. the European Investment Bank, the European Central Bank); - the participation of the United Kingdom in specific funds and facilities related to Union policies (e.g. the European Development Fund and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey). 25. This single financial settlement should be based on the principle that the United Kingdom must honour its share of the financing of all the obligations undertaken while it was a member of the Union. 26. In accordance with paragraph 10 of the European Council guidelines, these obligations cover liabilities, including contingent liabilities and any other obligations deriving from a basic act within the meaning of Article 54 of the Financial Regulation. In addition, the United Kingdom should fully cover the specific costs related to the withdrawal process such as the relocation of the agencies or other Union bodies. 27. The calculation method should be based on official consolidated annual accounts to be supplemented, as necessary, by making use of interim accounts. It will also use amounts from the relevant basic acts (including reference amounts and their followup through the financial programming). The obligations should be defined in euro. 28. The calculation method of the United Kingdom's obligations towards the Union budget should be based on the own resources decision and take into account the historical evidence of its share of the financing before the withdrawal date. 29. Modalities of payments should be agreed in order to mitigate the impact of the withdrawal on the budget for the Union. 30. The Agreement should therefore contain: (a) A calculation of the global amount that the United Kingdom has to honour in order to settle its financial obligations toward the Union budget, all institutions or bodies established by the Treaties, and other issues with a financial impact. The global amount may be subject to future annual technical adjustments. (b) A schedule of the annual payments to be made by the United Kingdom and the practical modalities for making these payments. (c) Transitional rules to ensure control by the Commission (or, where applicable, another body responsible under Union law before the withdrawal date), the Court of Auditors, OLAF and the power to adjudicate of the Court of Justice of the European Union for past payments/recovery orders to United Kingdom beneficiaries and any payments made to United Kingdom beneficiaries after the withdrawal date to honour all legal commitments (including possible loans) authorised by the responsible entity before the withdrawal date. (d) Possible arrangements in relation with legal commitments or future legal commitments made towards United Kingdom beneficiaries after the withdrawal date (e.g. concerning the managing authorities for the payment of United Kingdom beneficiaries). (e) Specific rules to address the issue of contingent liabilities assumed by the Union budget or specific institutions or bodies or funds (such as loans made by the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund). Source They can give tons of rationales for the final number or say pink unicorns wrote it down for them in glitter, they aren't going to get it. It was all implicitly contingent on the UK's continued membership in the EU. If the EU finds ongoing research or offices beneficial to itself, they may negotiate on costs of the program. Bill the UK and mic-drop is folly. Doubly ridiculous is your prior post that the EU is obligated to hurt its own citizens to make sure the UK doesnt get away with it. "You lose or everybody loses as punishment" is a very weak argument for picking the "You lose" option. + Show Spoiler +So if the negotiations end in a "haha, we're leaving and it'll cost you a ton of money and there's fuck all you can do about it" (aka "no deal"), expect pissed off EU nations to retaliate with sky-high trade tariffs. That will be bad for absolutely everybody involved, so it is in the best interest of absolutely everybody to find a way of conducting Brexit in a way that works for everybody. You make an excellent argument for it being in everybody's interest for a deal without a pathetic leave-EU bill, since that option involves less suffering for the EU than retaliatory stupidity.
If you want to use the "implicitly contingent on continued membership argument" you have to apply it equally - i.e. placing things such as EMA and EBA in UK was obviously also only done under the expectancy that UK would remain in EU, but since they didn't UK should obviously uphold the cost of moving these to a country which is staying.
You and Kwark can both pretend like UK doesn't owe anything, but any reasonable way you slice it - UK is incurring expenses on the rest of EU and as such it is only fair they have to foot part of that bill.
Further, the argument of UK having paid more than they received Kwark is now trying to field is so fucking dumb that it is hardly worth addressing. The argument is similar to the village idiot who argues he wants to pay less taxes as he doesn't have kids in school, yet ignores all the areas in which he benefits more than the average citizen (e.g. maybe he has higher usage of healthcare than the average citizen).
Lastly, UK is not even close to the country which has net paid the highest % of GNI to EU so they comparatively have very little to complain about concerning funding the EU budget - especially considering that unlike other nations which contributed percentage-wise more of their national budgets didn't get the bonus of hosting e.g. EMA or EBA. Source and any such argument completely ignores the positives gained from what EU provides.
|
On June 21 2017 01:15 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 00:46 Danglars wrote:On June 21 2017 00:01 Artisreal wrote:The European Commission wrote on May 3rd 2017Recommendation for a
COUNCIL DECISION
authorising the opening of the negotiations for an agreement with the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal
from the European Union III.2. Financial settlement 23. A single financial settlement should ensure that both the Union and the United Kingdom respect the obligations resulting from the whole period of the United Kingdom membership in the Union. The negotiations relating to the methodology for the financial settlement should be based on the following principles. 24. There should be a single financial settlement related to : - the Union budget - the termination of the membership of the United Kingdom of all bodies or institutions established by the Treaties (e.g. the European Investment Bank, the European Central Bank); - the participation of the United Kingdom in specific funds and facilities related to Union policies (e.g. the European Development Fund and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey). 25. This single financial settlement should be based on the principle that the United Kingdom must honour its share of the financing of all the obligations undertaken while it was a member of the Union. 26. In accordance with paragraph 10 of the European Council guidelines, these obligations cover liabilities, including contingent liabilities and any other obligations deriving from a basic act within the meaning of Article 54 of the Financial Regulation. In addition, the United Kingdom should fully cover the specific costs related to the withdrawal process such as the relocation of the agencies or other Union bodies. 27. The calculation method should be based on official consolidated annual accounts to be supplemented, as necessary, by making use of interim accounts. It will also use amounts from the relevant basic acts (including reference amounts and their followup through the financial programming). The obligations should be defined in euro. 28. The calculation method of the United Kingdom's obligations towards the Union budget should be based on the own resources decision and take into account the historical evidence of its share of the financing before the withdrawal date. 29. Modalities of payments should be agreed in order to mitigate the impact of the withdrawal on the budget for the Union. 30. The Agreement should therefore contain: (a) A calculation of the global amount that the United Kingdom has to honour in order to settle its financial obligations toward the Union budget, all institutions or bodies established by the Treaties, and other issues with a financial impact. The global amount may be subject to future annual technical adjustments. (b) A schedule of the annual payments to be made by the United Kingdom and the practical modalities for making these payments. (c) Transitional rules to ensure control by the Commission (or, where applicable, another body responsible under Union law before the withdrawal date), the Court of Auditors, OLAF and the power to adjudicate of the Court of Justice of the European Union for past payments/recovery orders to United Kingdom beneficiaries and any payments made to United Kingdom beneficiaries after the withdrawal date to honour all legal commitments (including possible loans) authorised by the responsible entity before the withdrawal date. (d) Possible arrangements in relation with legal commitments or future legal commitments made towards United Kingdom beneficiaries after the withdrawal date (e.g. concerning the managing authorities for the payment of United Kingdom beneficiaries). (e) Specific rules to address the issue of contingent liabilities assumed by the Union budget or specific institutions or bodies or funds (such as loans made by the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund). Source They can give tons of rationales for the final number or say pink unicorns wrote it down for them in glitter, they aren't going to get it. It was all implicitly contingent on the UK's continued membership in the EU. If the EU finds ongoing research or offices beneficial to itself, they may negotiate on costs of the program. Bill the UK and mic-drop is folly. Doubly ridiculous is your prior post that the EU is obligated to hurt its own citizens to make sure the UK doesnt get away with it. "You lose or everybody loses as punishment" is a very weak argument for picking the "You lose" option. + Show Spoiler +So if the negotiations end in a "haha, we're leaving and it'll cost you a ton of money and there's fuck all you can do about it" (aka "no deal"), expect pissed off EU nations to retaliate with sky-high trade tariffs. That will be bad for absolutely everybody involved, so it is in the best interest of absolutely everybody to find a way of conducting Brexit in a way that works for everybody. You make an excellent argument for it being in everybody's interest for a deal without a pathetic leave-EU bill, since that option involves less suffering for the EU than retaliatory stupidity. If you want to use the "implicitly contingent on continued membership argument" you have to apply it equally - i.e. placing things such as EMA and EBA in UK was obviously also only done under the expectancy that UK would remain in EU, but since they didn't UK should obviously uphold the cost of moving these to a country which is staying.
Why is this obvious? EU cant plan properly it can pay its own costs.
You and Kwark can both pretend like UK doesn't owe anything, but any reasonable way you slice it - UK is incurring expenses on the rest of EU and as such it is only fair they have to foot part of that bill.
The EU incured these expenses themselves by being unwilling to compromise with David Cameron, he came begging for a small compromise and he got a slap in the face instead. As far as most Brits are concerned the EU caused brexit itself.
|
United States42839 Posts
On June 21 2017 01:15 Ghostcom wrote:
If you want to use the "implicitly contingent on continued membership argument" you have to apply it equally - i.e. placing things such as EMA and EBA in UK was obviously also only done under the expectancy that UK would remain in EU, but since they didn't UK should obviously uphold the cost of moving these to a country which is staying.
That's not how obligations work. A third party can't say "I did this because I thought you'd do that but you didn't so now you need to reimburse me for my mistake". It's nonsense. If a contract between two parties was contingent upon the UK's continued membership of the EU then the injured party might be able to seek damages. But a third party couldn't.
On June 21 2017 01:15 Ghostcom wrote:
You and Kwark can both pretend like UK doesn't owe anything, but any reasonable way you slice it - UK is incurring expenses on the rest of EU and as such it is only fair they have to foot part of that bill.
The UK is paying the fair share of the bill while in the EU. And then some.
On June 21 2017 01:15 Ghostcom wrote:
Further, the argument of UK having paid more than they received Kwark is now trying to field is so fucking dumb that it is hardly worth addressing. The argument is similar to the village idiot who argues he wants to pay less taxes as he doesn't have kids in school, yet ignores all the areas in which he benefits more than the average citizen (e.g. maybe he has higher usage of healthcare than the average citizen).
And we were willingly paying more in than we got out while we wished to be members. But don't come up us insisting that we underpaid once we want to leave. It's just not factually accurate.
On June 21 2017 01:15 Ghostcom wrote:
Lastly, UK is not even close to the country which has net paid the highest % of GNI to EU so they comparatively have very little to complain about concerning funding the EU budget - especially considering that unlike other nations which contributed percentage-wise more of their national budgets.
Yeah, and there are children starving in Africa. How can the UK possibly complain about paying more than it gets when other countries have it even worse than the UK does? Clearly only the most oppressed country can leave! Then once the most oppressed country has left then the second most oppressed becomes the most oppressed and also has the option of leaving. And if the most oppressed country willingly chooses to stay then all other countries must follow that example.
Whether other countries want to stay in the EU or leave has zero bearing on whether the UK is entitled to leave.
|
So if she doesnt have majority would it be Cornyn given the speech?
|
No because Corbyn has even less support and the DUP HATE Corbyn they likely wouldn't risk bringing down the government and install an IRA supporter in no.10, they will vote for the Queens speech anyway.
|
United States42839 Posts
No. Despite Corbyn's claims, Labour were decisive losers this election. There is a colossal gulf between the Conservative share of MPs and Labour in second. If the Conservative government were to resign and they were to refuse to form a new government it still wouldn't be offered to Corbyn, it would go back to the people.
Corbyn has done a good job of pretending that Theresa May's failure is his success but no amount of claiming victory in the media will form a government.
|
If the UK owes nothing, aren’t they still required(per the cited agreement above) to provide a budget and breakdown showing they owe nothing? It would seem like a sensible thing to do when negotiating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
